EDUARDO SALAS, MARISSA L. SHUFFLER, AMANDA L. THAYER ...

[Pages:24]UNDERSTANDING AND IMPROVING

TEAMWORK IN ORGANIZATIONS:

A SCIENTIFICALLY BASED

PRACTICAL GUIDE

EDUARDO SALAS, MARISSA L. SHUFFLER, AMANDA L. THAYER, WENDY L. BEDWELL, AND ELIZABETH H. LAZZARA

Teams are pervasive in today's world, and rightfully so as we need them. Drawing upon the existing extensive body of research surrounding the topic of teamwork, we delineate nine "critical considerations" that serve as a practical heuristic by which HR leaders can determine what is needed when they face situations involving teamwork. Our heuristic is not intended to be the definitive set of all considerations for teamwork, but instead consolidates key findings from a vast literature to provide an integrated understanding of the underpinnings of teamwork--specifically, what should be considered when selecting, developing, and maintaining teams. This heuristic is designed to help those in practice diagnose team-based problems by providing a clear focus on relevant aspects of teamwork. To this end, we first define teamwork and its related elements. Second, we offer a high-level conceptualization of and justification for the nine selected considerations underlying the heuristic, which is followed by a more in-depth synthesis of related literature as well as empirically-driven practical guidance. Third, we conclude with a discussion regarding how this heuristic may best be used from a practical standpoint, as well as offer areas for future research regarding both teamwork and its critical considerations. ? 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Keywords: teams, groups

T eams are pervasive in today's world, and rightfully so as we need them. We need them in our hospitals, flight decks, oil rigs, military, nuclear power plants, and a host of other organizations involved in our everyday functioning. To be effective, these teams must operate through the interdependent actions of individuals working toward a common goal--a set of actions

and processes known as teamwork (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001). But what exactly is teamwork? What influences it? Perhaps most importantly, how do we develop and maintain it? A plethora of research driven by increased interest in teams has resulted in a seemingly endless array of literature attempting to explain teamwork and the conditions surrounding its success or failure.

Correspondence to: Eduardo Salas, Institute for Simulation and Training, Department of Psychology, University of Central Florida, 3100 Technology Parkway, Orlando, FL 32826, Phone: 407-882-1325, Fax: 407-882-1550, E-mail: esalas@ist.ucf.edu

Human Resource Management ? 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley Online Library (). DOI:10.1002/hrm.21628

2

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Although this literature base has provided us

with vast knowledge, it can be difficult to summa-

rize this information into a useful set of principles

to aid practitioners in understanding what factors

must be considered when teamwork is enacted.

Thus, the focus of this article is to offer an over-

arching, practical heuristic of the most critical

considerations for teamwork. The novelty of the

current work is not necessarily in the review of

teamwork itself, but instead in the offering of a

concise framework that organizes previous find-

ings in a meaningful, practically relevant manner.

Drawing upon the current extensive body of

research regarding teamwork, we

delineate nine "critical considerDrawing upon the ations" that serve as a guiding heu-

current extensive ristic by which individuals, teams, organizations, and other collaborat-

body of research ing entities can determine what is

needed when they face situations regarding teamwork, involving teamwork. This heuristic

we delineate

provides a basic understanding of the underpinnings of teamwork--

nine "critical

specifically, what should be consid-

ered when selecting, developing, considerations" that and maintaining teams.

serve as a guiding

Our heuristic is not intended to

be the definitive set of all consider-

heuristic by which ations for teamwork nor a definition

of teamwork, but rather serves as a individuals, teams, practical attempt to consolidate key

organizations, and findings from a vast literature to provide useful guidelines for those

other collaborating outside this area of research. To this

entities can

end, we first define teamwork and offer a high-level conceptualization

determine what is of the nine selected considerations. This is followed by a more in-

needed when they depth review of each consideration,

face situations

delineating relevant research and describing why each consideration

involving teamwork. is critical to understanding teamwork. We also offer practical advice

and recommendations that can be

leveraged by organizational leaders and others

involved in ensuring teamwork success. Finally,

we conclude with a discussion of how this heuris-

tic may best be used from a practical standpoint

and for future research.

Defining Teamwork

To provide a heuristic of critical considerations for teamwork, it is important to clearly define teams and teamwork. Teams are "a distinguishable set of two or more people who interact, dynamically, interdependently, and adaptively toward a common and valued goal/objective/mission" (Salas,

Dickinson, Converse, & Tannenbaum, 1992, p. 4). This definition captures the primary components of teams--multiple individuals, interdependencies, and a shared goal--while also remaining comprehensive so as to not exclude any particular type of team or teamwork.

For teams to be effective, they must successfully perform both taskwork and teamwork (Burke, Wilson & Salas, 2003; Morgan, Glickman, Woodward, Blaiwes, & Salas, 1986). Taskwork involves the performance of specific tasks that team members need to complete in order to achieve team goals. In particular, tasks represent the workrelated activities that individuals or teams engage in as an essential function of their organizational role (Wildman et al., 2012b). Conversely, teamwork focuses more on the shared behaviors (i.e., what team members do), attitudes (i.e., what team members feel or believe), and cognitions (i.e., what team members think or know) that are necessary for teams to accomplish these tasks (Morgan, Salas, & Glickman, 1994). Both taskwork and teamwork are critical to successful team performance, with the effectiveness of one facilitating the other. Although taskwork often becomes a key focus for teams as they work toward goals, it is teamwork that aids in ensuring taskwork is performed effectively. Despite having an extensive knowledge of the task at hand, a team will fail if the members cannot successfully share knowledge, coordinate behaviors, and trust one another (Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008). In fact, individuals who have extensive taskrelevant expertise are still vulnerable to poor team outcomes if teamwork is inadequate (Gregorich, Helmreich, & Wilhelm, 1990; Ruffel-Smith, 1979; Schmidt, Keeton, Slack, Leveton, & Shea, 2009). In sum, teamwork is an adaptive, dynamic, and episodic process that encompasses the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors among team members while they interact toward a common goal. Teamwork is necessary for effective team performance, as it defines how tasks and goals are accomplished in a team context.

Critical Considerations for Teamwork: A Heuristic

Given this definition of teamwork, we now turn to identifying the critical considerations for its effectiveness. These critical considerations are the summation of a wide range of teamwork literature accumulated over the past several decades. Indeed, many reviews exist to highlight the different conditions and processes that can impact teamwork (e.g., Cannon-Bowers & Bowers, 2010; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006; Marks et al., 2001; Mathieu et al., 2008; Sundstrom, McIntyre, Halfhill, & Richards, 2000). Table I provides a more complete list

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

TEAMWORK

3

T A B L E I Sample of Team Effectiveness Reviews in the Past 15 Years

Source

Approach

Major Contribution(s)

Balkundi & Harrison, 2006

Meta-analysis

Examined the effects of social network structures on team effectiveness, illustrating that denser networks and those with centralized leaders are more effective.

Beal et al., 2003 Meta-analysis

Examined the role of team cohesion in relation to performance, finding that the relationship differs depending on how cohesion and performance are operationalized.

Cannon-Bowers Literature syn& Bowers, 2010 thesis

Comprehensive review of major teamwork and team development theories, and future team research needs.

Chiocchio &

Meta-analysis

Essiembre, 2009

Examined the moderating effect of team type and team setting on the relationship between cohesion and performance, providing support for both.

De Dreu & Weingart, 2003

Meta-analysis

Examined the relationships of task and relationship conflict with team performance and member satisfaction, finding differential effects for these two types of cohesion.

DeChurch &

Meta-analysis

Mesmer-Magnus,

2010

Examined the effects of team cognition on teamwork processes and outcomes, highlighting both broad relationships and moderating effects among cognition, behavior, motivation, and performance.

Devine & Philips, Meta-analysis 2001

Illustrated the results of several meta-analyses investigating the relationship between different team-level metrics of member cognitive ability and team performance.

Gully Devine, & Meta-analysis Whitney, 1995

Investigated level of analysis and interdependence as moderators of the relationships between task-specific team efficacy, generalized potency, and performance.

Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007

Meta-analysis

Empirically summarized findings regarding the impact of team diversity on team outcomes, specifically focusing on bio-demographic and task-related diversity.

Ilgen, Hollen-

Literature

beck, Johnson, & synthesis

Jundt, 2005

Reviewed team literature from the context of an IMOI framework, organizing research around a two-dimensional system of time and exploratory mechanisms.

Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006

Literature synthesis

Synthesized the past 50 years of team process and performance research, highlighting foundational findings and recommending future research areas.

LePine et al., 2008

Meta-analysis

Provided empirical support for the three higher-order teamwork processes (action, transition, and interpersonal), as proposed by Marks and colleagues (2001).

Manser, 2009

Qualitative review

Qualitatively summarized research on teamwork in health care, finding support for the relationship between teamwork and patient safety.

Marks, Mathieu, Synthesis & the- Provided a framework examining the temporal nature of team processes

Zaccaro, 2001

ory advancement and emergent states.

Mathieu et al., 2008

Literature synthesis

Provided a synthesis of the literature on teamwork and team effectiveness from 1997?2007, highlighting major findings and providing future research directions.

Mesmer-Magnus Meta-analysis & DeChurch, 2009

Examined the relationship between information sharing and team performance, finding that information sharing uniqueness and openness have different effects on team performance.

Pi?a, Mart?nez, Qualitative & Mart?nez, 2008 review

Qualitatively analyzed recent findings on organizational teams, highlighting the multidimensional nature of team outcomes and the need for multimethod metrics and analyses in team contexts.

Salas et al., 2008 Meta-analysis

Examined the impact of team training on team outcomes, delineating when team training is effective for teamwork.

Stewart, 2006

Meta-analysis

Reviewed the relationships between team design features and team performance, finding differential effects for team composition variables, team type, and team task types.

Sunstrom et al., Synthesis & the- Provided a seminal typology of types of teams.

2000

ory advancement

4

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

summarizing these reviews and their contribu-

tions to the teamwork literature. Although these

reviews provide key points in terms of important

factors that affect teamwork, they do not neces-

sarily provide practitioner-friendly insight regard-

ing what really matters to teamwork. That is,

the numerous attempts to define

and consolidate teamwork research

These factors should oftentimes results in more questions

than answers and does not necessarnot be considered ily serve to guide organizations and

in isolation from

collaborators in addressing teamwork challenges in the real world

one another, but (Salas, Cooke, & Rosen, 2008).

rather that they

A few assumptions must be presented prior to further discus-

must be holistically sion regarding each of these considerations. First, we do not identify

considered in trying directional paths among these con-

siderations within our heuristic (see to determine how to Figure 1). This is intentional, as the

establish effective literature suggests that these factors may influence one another under

teamwork practices. a range of circumstances. Indeed,

the potential interactions among

these factors are one of the driving

reasons behind their selection as a set. Thus, we

are arguing that these factors should not be con-

sidered in isolation from one another, but rather

that they must be holistically considered in trying

to determine how to establish effective teamwork

practices. Second, there is no hierarchy among

these considerations. In other words, one consideration is not necessarily more or less important than any other consideration. Instead, organizations should attend to each of these considerations and determine, based upon their unique team situations, if any are more or less influential for the given team environment. Finally, we propose this as an initial set of considerations and associated practical implications, with the understanding that as research advances our knowledge regarding teamwork, there may be a need for continued refinement. In sum, this heuristic serves to be a living, parsimonious, organizing set of considerations that individuals, teams, and organizations can utilize to develop and sustain effective teamwork.

So what do organizational leaders and team members need to know to enact effective teamwork? To answer this, we turn to the literature to derive a set of nine critical considerations for teamwork aimed at creating a more parsimonious path to effective practices in organizations (see Table II). Each of these critical considerations has been selected due to (1) its prevalence in the theoretical team literature and (2) the empirical evidence indicating its impact on team outcomes, resulting in a need for organizations to pay close attention to its influences in real-world settings. It should be noted that these considerations are also selected for their ability to provide a memorable framework. The use of nine "C" words to encompass teamwork may appear to be superficial, but

INFLUENCING CONDITIONS

CORE PROCESSES & EMERGENT STATES

COGNITION

CONFLICT

COORDINATION

COACHING

COOPERATION

TEAMWORK

COMMUNICATION

CONTEXT

COMPOSITION

CULTURE

FIGURE 1. Heuristic of the Critical Considerations of Teamwork

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

TEAMWORK

5

research has indicated that there are limitations to human information processing and memory (Miller, 1956). Thus, to ensure that researchers and practitioners acknowledge and scrutinize each consideration accordingly, it is beneficial to develop a memorable heuristic such as the "C" phrasing.

These considerations comprise six core emergent states and processes, as well as three influencing conditions. Emergent states are the resultant dynamic properties of a team, whereas processes are defined as interdependent activities that facilitate taskwork accomplishment in the pursuit of goals (Marks et al., 2001). The six processes

and emergent states we offer as critical considerations are (1) cooperation, (2) conflict, (3) coordination, (4) communication, (5) coaching, and (6) cognition. We also include three influencing conditions, which serve as factors impacting the aforementioned core processes and emergent states: (1) composition, (2) culture, and (3) context. These influencing conditions describe the broad range of factors affecting how teams operate and how variability within those factors can both directly and indirectly (through the aforementioned processes and emergent states) influence team outcomes. All of these considerations have extensive theoretical and empirical support

T A B L E I I Definitions of Critical Considerations for Teamwork and Collaboration

Critical Consideration

Definition

References

Cooperation

The motivational drivers of teamwork. In essence, this is the attitudes, beliefs, and feelings of the team that drive behavioral action.

Mathieu et al., 2008; Salas, Stagl, Burke, & Goodwin, 2007; Wiener, Kanki, & Helmreich, 1993

Conflict

The perceived incompatibilities in the interests, beliefs, or views held by one or more team members.

Bradley et al., 2011; DeDreu & Weingart, 2003; Jehn, 1995, 1997

Coordination

The enactment of behavioral and cognitive mecha-

Marks et al., 2001; Rico

nisms necessary to perform a task and transform team et al., 2008; Sims & Salas

resources into outcomes.

(2007); Stewart, 2006

Communication

A reciprocal process of team members' sending and Connaughton & Daly, 2004;

receiving information that forms and re-forms a team's Craig, 1999; LePine et al.,

attitudes, behaviors, and cognitions.

2008

Coaching

The enactment of leadership behaviors to establish goals and set direction that leads to the successful accomplishment of these goals.

Hackman & Wageman, 2005; Morgeson et al., 2010; Zaccaro et al., 2001

Cognition

A shared understanding among team members that is developed as a result of team member interactions including knowledge of roles and responsibilities; team mission objectives and norms; and familiarity with teammate knowledge, skills and abilities.

DeChurch & MesmerMagnus, 2010; Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994; Wildman et al., 2012a

Composition*

The individual factors relevant to team performance; what constitutes a good team member; what is the best configuration of team member knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSAs); and what role diversity plays in team effectiveness.

Cannon-Bowers & Bowers, 2010; Humphrey, Morgeson, & Mannor, 2009; Stevens & Campion, 1994

Context*

Situational characteristics or events that influence the occurrence and meaning of behavior, as well as the manner and degree to which various factors impact team outcomes.

Bedwell et al., 2012; Hertel et al., 2004; Johns, 2006; McGrath, 1984

Culture*

Assumptions about humans' relationships with each other and their environment that are shared among an identifiable group of people (e.g., team, organization, nation) and manifest in individuals' values, beliefs, norms for social behavior, and artifacts.

Gibson, Maznevski, & Kirkman (2009); Stahl et al., 2010; Taras et al., 2010

*Denotes influencing condition.

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

6

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

for their importance to teams in varying contexts and across a multitude of tasks, which serves as the impetus for their inclusion.

Core Processes and Emergent States

The core processes and emergent states described herein as critical considerations are the primary attitudes, behaviors, and cognitions that occur within the team and encompass the core aspects of teamwork. These considerations have emerged as critical from decades of extensive empirical work acknowledging their significance in effective teamwork. These include the attitudes and motivations within the team for engaging in teamwork (i.e., cooperation), the behavioral interactions among members (i.e., conflict, coordination, communication, coaching), and the shared knowledge that arises out of these interactions (i.e., cognition).

Cooperation

Collective efficacy Cooperation is an overarching

is an important

teamwork consideration that captures the motivational drivers nec-

component of essary for effective teamwork. In

essence, cooperation involves the cooperation to target. attitudes, beliefs, and feelings of the

In order to ensure team that drive behavioral action. There are a number of team-level

its development, indicators of cooperation critical

we recommend

to team effectiveness. For instance, Cannon-Bowers, Tannenbaum,

the cultivating of Salas, and Volpe (1995) discussed collective efficacy (i.e., collective

collective efficacy sense of competence or perceived

empowerment to control the team's through promoting function or environment; e.g.,

"early wins."

Katz-Navon & Erez, 2005; Mathieu, Gilson, & Ruddy, 2006; Zaccaro,

Blair, Peterson, & Zazanis, 1995),

trust (i.e., shared belief that all team members

will contribute as required by role and protect the

team; e.g., Bandow, 2001; Salas, Sims, & Burke,

2005), and team/collective orientation (i.e., gen-

eral preference for and belief in the importance

of teamwork; e.g., Eby & Dobbins, 1997; Jackson,

Colquitt, Wesson, & Zapata-Phelan, 2006) as team-

level attitudes important for successful teamwork.

Research has empirically established relation-

ships between these cooperative mechanisms and

desired team outcomes. Specifically, teams whose

members collectively believe they are capable of

successfully attaining goals tend to (1) exert more

effort, (2) take more strategic risks, (3) have better

performance, and (4) be more satisfied (Knight,

Durham, & Locke, 2001; Lester, Meglino, &

Korsgaard, 2002). Another aspect of cooperation,

trust, has been found to influence the amount of

monitoring within a team (Langfred, 2004) and moderate the relationships between (1) team training proficiency and performance, as well as (2) task and relationship conflict. Trust also leads to citizenship behaviors, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, positive attitudes toward the organization, and greater levels of performance (e.g., Colquitt, Scott, & LePine, 2007; Costa, 2003; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2002; Kirkman, Rosen, Tesluk, & Gibson, 2006; Langfred, 2007; Webber, 2008). Recent research on adaptation (and the associated importance of learning and continuous development) has highlighted the significance of other components of cooperation in relation to team effectiveness, including psychological safety (i.e., shared feeling of safety within a team allowing for interpersonal risk taking; e.g., Edmondson, 1999) and teamlearning orientation (i.e., shared belief regarding the degree to which team goals are geared toward learning; e.g., Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2003). Goal commitment (i.e., the determination to achieve team goals) has also been suggested as a critical attitude for effective teamwork, though this has been proposed as a subdimension of the more broadly defined cohesion construct (Beal, Cohen, Burke, & McLendon, 2003).

Practical Guidance

The research surrounding this critical consideration offers several important recommendations in terms of ensuring that cooperation will lead to enhanced teamwork, two of which are particularly essential to organizations. First, collective efficacy is an important component of cooperation to target. In order to ensure its development, we recommend the cultivating of collective efficacy through promoting "early wins" (Tasa, Taggar, & Seijts, 2007). Specifically, newly formed teams that experience high levels of initial success use these "wins" to develop a collective sense of accomplishment that permeates through to later performances. Therefore, leaders who can help teams facilitate such wins--which may be simple, easily achievable goals that precede more challenging tasks--should see heightened collective efficacy and cooperation.

Our second recommendation regarding cooperation is related to the establishment of trust in teams. Trust is a well-studied attitude contributing to teamwork success, especially in terms of the antecedents that lead to its formation (Lewicki, Tomlinson, & Gillespie, 2006). To develop trust in teams, it is recommended that team members discuss prior experiences relevant to the tasks to be performed in their team. For example, operating teams preparing for surgery may benefit from

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

TEAMWORK

7

discussing previous experiences in similar types of surgeries. This discussion of previous experience plays two important roles. First, it allows members to ascertain the abilities of others on the team, a critical antecedent to trust (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). Furthermore, such discussion can create a sense of perceived similarity, as members begin to realize that they may have experienced similar events in the past. Social identity theory and social categorization (Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner, 1987) suggest that if individuals perceive others as similar to themselves, this similarity is associated with a set of predetermined assumptions and a sense of predictability and comfort. Simply stated, individuals are likely to trust others perceived to be similar to themselves (Brewer, 1979; Brewer & Kramer, 1986; Kramer & Brewer, 1984). Thus, these discussions, conducted prior to performance, can aid in the facilitation of trust as well as related cooperative attitudes that can subsequently have a positive impact on teamwork.

Conflict

Teams inevitably experience conflict during their life cycle. Indeed, one of the most classic models of team development includes a "storming" stage, during which members are expected to work out differences in opinions and ideas (Tuckman, 1965). Conflict may be as simple as a brief disagreement regarding who is responsible for performing a particular task or as extreme as a heated fight when personalities differ strongly (Jehn, 1995, 1997). Conflict is particularly an issue for teams, as it can lead to errors and breakdowns in performance (Salas et al., 2008), and its impact on performance is further magnified by the complexity of the team's task (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003).

Conflict can be defined as perceived incompatibilities in the interests, beliefs, or views held by one or more team members (Jehn, 1995). Generally speaking, conflict is a result of perceived deprivation of resources or treatment because of the actions or inactions of another party. Team conflict can be either task-based (i.e., differences in viewpoints or opinions regarding how members should best execute tasks), or relationshipbased (i.e., interpersonal differences that spark annoyance or tension among team members). Additionally, recent literature points to the inclusion of process conflict as a third dimension, which refers to conflict regarding how to divide and delegate tasks and responsibilities among team members (Behfar, Peterson, Mannix, & Trochim, 2008; Jehn, 1997).

Different views exist with regard to the specific impact of conflict on team processes and outcomes. Some argue that it is relationship conflict

that is the most detrimental to team performance, while task conflict can positively impact team performance under certain conditions (Bradley, Postlethwaite, Klotz, Hamdani, & Brown, 2011). Specifically, task conflict serves as a means for members to express multiple potentially conflicting options for problem solving or task completion, meaning that the team is presented with a variety of viewpoints, opinions, or solutions from which to choose the most viable. This clearly has implications for team performance outcomes, especially in problem-solving tasks that require innovation and creativity. In contrast, De Dreu and Weingart (2003) found that conflict, both relationship and task, has a strong negative correlation with team performance as well as team member satisfaction. Further, though conflict can have a beneficial impact initially, this effect quickly diminishes over time, as it results in decreased group cohesion (Copeland & Wida, 1996; Klein & Christiansen, 1969).

Recent research also suggests that the interactions between relationship and task conflict may be more complex than initially thought. More specifically, a recent study of work teams revealed a moderating effect of relationship conflict on the task conflict?team performance relationship (Shaw et al., 2011); when relationship conflict was low, task conflict had a curvilinear relationship with team performance, but when relationship conflict was high, there was a negative and linear relationship. In other words, when team members had positive interpersonal relationships, a moderate amount of task conflict was most beneficial for team performance, whereas task conflict was consistently detrimental to performance when team members' interpersonal relationships were strained. Understanding these dynamics between different types of conflict is therefore extremely important to promoting successful teamwork.

Practical Guidance

Given the potentially negative influences of conflict on teamwork and the complexities associated with this consideration for teamwork, it is particularly important for organizational leadership to consider the management and resolution of conflict (e.g., being both proactive and reactive). That is, prior to performance, teams should work to set norms and guidelines regarding how to handle conflict through the adoption of appropriate conflict management strategies. Furthermore, once teams experience conflict, they should not be afraid to confront it and instead should react by utilizing the previously agreed upon conflict management strategies. Conflict management strategies have been found to alleviate the negative

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

8

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

impacts of conflict, particularly its effects on

team cohesion (Tekleab, Quigley, & Tesluk, 2009).

Indeed, recent literature supports this assertion, as

teams that manage conflict directly are better able

to create healthy, open, and constructive environ-

ments that enhance team performance (Cameron,

2000; Campbell & Dunnette, 1968; Montoya-

Weiss, Massey, & Song, 2001).

Further, drawing from the perspective that cer-

tain conditions can foster positive and beneficial

task conflict, Bradley and colleagues (2011) found

in their study of project teams that a psychologi-

cally safe climate, or one in which team members

feel comfortable sharing information and being

open with one another without threat of repercus-

sions (Edmondson, 1999), can reduce relationship

conflict while simultaneously pro-

Research suggests

moting a small degree of task conflict that positively impacts team

that certain patterns performance. Moreover, research

of intragroup

suggests that certain patterns of intragroup conflict can derail team

conflict can derail performance and other critical team outcomes. In real-world settings, this

team performance can mean the difference between

a successful surgery or flight and a and other critical life-threatening error. Thus, creating

team outcomes. In

norms for handling conflict prior to performance, as well as assessing

real-world settings, this can mean the

and effectively managing conflict on a regular basis, is a critical consideration for teamwork across orga-

difference between nizational contexts.

Coordination

a successful surgery

Effective coordination is a primary or flight and a life- driver behind positive team out-

threatening error. comes. Coordination can be defined as the enactment of behavioral

mechanisms necessary to perform a

task and transform team resources into outcomes

(Sims & Salas, 2007). Behavioral mechanisms are

undoubtedly vital for effective team processes

and outcomes. Because of their criticality and

prevalence, one systematic review integrated 29

frameworks that focused on teamwork behaviors

specifically, with coordination frequently cited

as a vital dimension (Rousseau, Aube, & Savoie,

2006). In essence, coordination involves "orches-

trating the sequence and timing of interdependent

actions" (Marks et al., 2001, p. 363). Coordination

involves the use of team-level strategies to align

knowledge and actions to achieve common goals

(Arrow, McGrath, & Berdahl, 2000; Brannick,

Prince, Prince, & Salas, 1995). Coordination can

take several forms, as individuals within a team

may be performing the same or complementary

tasks, which may range as a function of their interdependence (Guastello & Guastello, 1998). Furthermore, coordination can be explicit, where team members intentionally utilize mechanisms such as planning and communication to manage interdependencies, or implicit, whereby team members anticipate team needs and dynamically adjust their behaviors accordingly without having to be instructed (Rico, Sa? nchez-Manzanares, Gil, & Gibson, 2008).

Both implicit and explicit coordination are pivotal drivers of team performance, as demonstrated in a range of field and lab studies. Indeed, teams that utilize routines and distribute responsibilities have been found to be more effective than those that do not (Gersick, 1988; Gersick & Hackman, 1990; Weick & Roberts, 1993). More generally, Stewart (2006) conducted a metaanalysis of 93 studies, finding that within-team coordination corresponded with higher team performance. Coordination also appears to become even more important when investigating systems that require multiple teams to work together toward a common goal, or multiteam systems (Mathieu et al., 2008). Several studies have found that effective coordination at the multiteam system level--that is, coordinated actions between the component teams comprising the system-- also aided in the facilitation of coordination within component teams (de Jong, de Ruyter, & Wetzels, 2005; Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Mathieu & Schulze, 2006). This nesting of coordination may be particularly important for organizations that are dynamic in nature, such as in health care or the military.

Practical Guidance

Based on the existing literature, organizational leaders and others involved in the management of teams should critically scrutinize team coordination when developing and assessing teams, as effective coordination helps to ensure positive outcomes, while breakdowns in coordination can lead to increases in errors, misunderstandings, and ultimately derail performance (Sims & Salas, 2007). In terms of specific recommendations, it is first critical that team member roles are defined prior to performance in such a way that they are clear yet not overly rigid (Salas, Rosen, Burke, Goodwin, & Fiore, 2006). That is, in order to maximize the contributions of all team members and prevent any redundancies in work, an understanding of roles and responsibilities should be clarified in order to guide expectations regarding how to coordinate. However, teams should remain relatively flexible such that if unexpected needs arise, appropriate members can step in and fulfill such

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download